V. I. Lenin

On the Significance of Militant Materialism

Written:12 March 1922First Published:Pod Znamenem Marksizma No.
	3,Published according to thePod Znamenem MarksizmatextSource:Lenin’sCollected 	
	Works, Progress Publishers, Moscow, Volume 33, 1972, pp. 227-236Translated:David Skvirsky and George HannaTranscription\HTML Markup:David 	
	Walters, Brian Baggins &R. 	
	CymbalaCopyleft:V. I. Lenin Internet Archive 	
	(www.marx.org) 2002. Permission is granted to copy and/or distribute this 	
	document under the terms of theGNU Free Documentation License

Comrade Trotsky has already said everything necessary, and
	said it very well, about the general purposes ofPod Znamenem
	Marksizmain issue No. 1-2 of that journal. I should like to deal
	with certain questions that more closely define the content and programme
	of the work which its editors have set forth in the introductory statement
	in this issue.

This statement says that not all those gathered round the journalPod Znamenem Marksizmaare Communists but that they are all
	consistentmaterialists.
	I think that this alliance of Communists and non-Communists is absolutely
	essential and correctly defines the purposes of the journal. One of the
	biggest and most dangerous mistakes made by Communists (as generally by
	revolutionaries who have successfully accomplished the beginning of a
	great revolution) is the idea that a revolution can be made by
	revolutionaries alone. On the contrary, to be successful, all serious
	revolutionary work requires that the idea that revolutionaries are capable
	of playing the part only of the vanguard of the truly virile and advanced
	class must be understood and translated into action. A vanguard performs
	its task as vanguard only when it is able to avoid being isolated from the
	mass of the people it leads and is able really to lead the whole mass
	forward. Without an alliance with non-Communists in the most diverse
	spheres of activity there can be no question of any successful communist
	construction.

This also applies to the defence of materialism and Marxism, which has
	been undertakenPod Znamenem Marksizma.Fortunately, the main
	trends of advanced social thinking in Russia have a solid materialist
	tradition. Apart fromG. V.
	Plekhanov, it will be enough to mention Chernyshevsky, from whom the
	modernNarodniks(the
	Popular Socialists, Socialist-Revolutionaries, etc.) have frequently
	retreated in quest of fashionable reactionary philosophical doctrines,
	captivated by the tinsel of the so-called last word in European science,
	and unable to discern beneath this tinsel some variety of servility to the
	bourgeoisie, to bourgeois prejudice and bourgeois reaction.

At any rate, in Russia we still have — and shall undoubtedly have
	for a fairly long time to come — materialists from the non-communist
	camp, and it is our absolute duty to enlist all adherents of consistent
	and militant materialism in the joint work of combating philosophical
	reaction and the philosophical prejudices of so-called educated society.Dietzgensenior — not to be confused with his writer son, who was as
	pretentious as he was unsuccessful — correctly, aptly and clearly
	expressed the fundamental Marxist view of the philosophical trends which
	prevail in bourgeois countries and enjoy the regard of their scientists
	and publicists, when he said that in effect the professors of philosophy
	in modern society are in the majority of cases nothing but “graduated
	flunkeys of clericalism “.

Our Russian intellectuals, who, like their brethren in all other
	countries, are fond of thinking themselves advanced, are very much averse
	to shifting the question to the level of the opinion expressed in
	Dietzgen’s words. But they are averse to it because they cannot look
	the truth in the face. One has only to give a little thought to the
	governmental and also the general economic, social and every other kind of
	dependence of modern educated people on the ruling bourgeoisie to realise
	that Dietzgen’s scathing description was absolutely true. One has
	only to recall the vast majority of the fashionable philosophical trends
	that arise so frequently in European countries, beginning for example with
	those connected with the discovery of radium and ending with those which
	are now seeking to clutch at the skirts ofEinstein, to gain an idea of the connection between the class interests and the
	class position of the bourgeoisie and its support of all forms of religion
	on the one hand, and the ideological content of the fashionable
	philosophical trends on the other.

It will be seen from the above that a journal that sets out to be a
	militant materialist organ must be primarily a militant organ, in the
	sense of unflinchingly exposing and indicting all modern “graduated
	flunkeys of clericalism”, irrespective of whether they act as
	representatives of official science or as free lances calling themselves
	“democratic Left or ideologically socialist” publicists.

In the second place, such a journal must be a militant atheist organ.
	We have departments, or at least state institutions, which are in charge
	of this work. But the work is being carried on with extreme apathy and
	very unsatisfactorily, and is apparently suffering from the general
	conditions of our truly Russian (even though Soviet) bureaucratic ways. It
	is therefore highly essential that in addition to the work of these state
	institutions, and in order to improve and infuse life into that work, a
	journal which sets out to propagandise militant materialism must carry on
	untiring atheist propaganda and an untiring atheist fight. The literature
	on the subject in all languages should be carefully followed and
	everything at all valuable in this sphere should be translated, or at
	least reviewed.

Engels long ago advised the contemporary leaders of the proletariat to
	translate the militant atheist literature of the late eighteenth century
	for mass distribution among the people. We have not done this up to the
	present, to our shame be it said (this is one of the numerous proofs that
	it is much easier to seize power in a revolutionary epoch than to know how
	to use this power properly). Our apathy, inactivity and incompetence are
	sometimes excused on all sorts of “lofty” grounds, as, for
	example, that the old atheist literature of the eighteenth century is
	antiquated, unscientific, naive, etc. There is nothing worse than such
	pseudo-scientific sophistry, which serves as a screen either for pedantry
	or for a complete misunderstanding of Marxism. There is, of course, much
	that is unscientific and naive in the atheist writings of the
	eighteenth-century revolutionaries. But nobody prevents the publishers of
	these writings from abridging them and providing them with brief
	postscripts pointing out the progress made by mankind in the scientific
	criticism of religions since the end of the eighteenth century, mentioning
	the latest writings on the subject, and so forth. It would be the biggest
	and most grievous mistake a Marxist could make to think that the millions
	of the people (especially the peasants and artisans), who have been
	condemned by all modern society to darkness, ignorance and superstitions
	— can extricate themselves from this darkness only along the
	straight line of a purely Marxist education. These masses should be
	supplied with the most varied atheist propaganda material, they should be
	made familiar with facts from the most diverse spheres of life, they
	should be approached in every possible way, so as to interest them, rouse
	them from their religious torpor, stir them front the most varied angles
	and by the most varied methods, and so forth.

The keen, vivacious and talented writings of the old eighteenth-century
	atheists wittily and openly attacked the prevailing clericalism and will
	very often prove a thousand times more suitable for arousing people from
	their religious torpor than the dull and dry paraphrases of Marxism,
	almost completely unillustrated by skillfully selected facts, which
	predominate in our literature and which (it is no use hiding the fact)
	frequently distort Marxism. We have translations of all the major works of
	Marx and Engels. There are absolutely no grounds for fearing that the old
	atheism and old materialism will remain un-supplemented by the corrections
	introduced by Marx and Engels. The most important thing — and it is
	this that is most frequently overlooked by those of our Communists who are
	supposedly Marxists, but who in fact mutilate Marxism — is to know
	how to awaken in the still undeveloped masses an intelligent attitude
	towards religious questions and an intelligent criticism of religions.

On the other hand, take a glance at modern scientific critics of
	religion. These educated bourgeois writers almost invariably
	“supplement” their own refutations of religious superstitions
	with arguments which immediately expose them as ideological slaves of the
	bourgeoisie, as “graduated flunkeys of clericalism”.

Two examples. Professor R. Y. Wipper published in 1918 a little book
	entitledVozniknovenie Khristianstva(The Origin of
	Christianity— Pharos Publishing House, Moscow). In his account
	of the principal results of modern science, the author not only refrains
	from combating the superstitions and deception which are the weapons of
	the church as a political organisation, not only evades these questions,
	but makes the simply ridiculous and most reactionary claim that he is
	above both “extremes “ — the idealist and the materialist.
	This is toadying to the ruling bourgeoisie, which all over the world
	devotes to the support of religion hundreds of millions of rubles from.
	the profits squeezed out of the working people.

The well-known German scientist, Arthur Drews, while refuting religious
	superstitions and fables in his book,Die Christusmythe(The
	Christ Myth), and while showing that Christ never existed, at the end
	of the book declares in favour of religion, albeit a renovated, purified
	and more subtle religion, one that would be capable of withstanding
	“the daily growing naturalist torrent” (fourth German edition,
	1910, p. 238). Here we have an out-spoken and deliberate reactionary, who
	is openly helping the exploiters to replace the old, decayed religious
	superstitions by new, more odious and vile superstitions.

This does not mean that Drews should not be translated. It means that
	while in a certain measure effecting an alliance with the progressive
	section of the bourgeoisie, Communists and all consistent materialists
	should unflinchingly expose that section when it is guilty of reaction. It
	means that to shun an alliance with the representatives of the bourgeoisie
	of the eighteenth century, i.e., the period when it was revolutionary,
	would be to betray Marxism and materialism; for an “alliance”
	with the Drewses, in one form or another and in one degree or another., is
	essential for our struggle against the predominating religious
	obscurantists.

Pod Znamenem Marksizma,which sets out to be an organ of
	militant materialism, should devote much of its space to atheist
	propaganda, to reviews of the literature on the subject and to correcting
	the immense shortcomings of our governmental work in this field. It is
	particularly important to utilise books and pamphlets which contain many
	concrete facts and comparisons showing how the class interests and class
	organisations of the modern bourgeoisie are connected with the
	organisations of religious institutions and religious propaganda.

All material relating to the United States of America, where the
	official. state connection between religion and capital is less manifest,
	is extremely important. But, on the other hand, it becomes all the clearer
	to us that so-called modern democracy (which the Mensheviks, the
	Socialist-Revolutionaries, partly also the anarchists, etc., so
	unreasonably worship) is nothing but the freedom to preach whatever is to
	the advantage of the bourgeoisie, to preach, namely, the most reactionary
	ideas, religion, obscurantism, defence of the exploiters, etc.

One would like to hope that a journal which sets out to be a militant
	materialist organ will provide our reading public with reviews of atheist
	literature, showing for which circle of readers any particular writing
	might be suitable and in what respect, and mentioning what literature has
	been published in our country (only decent translations should be given
	notice, and they are not so many), and what is still to be published.

In addition to the alliance with consistent materialists who do not
	belong to the Communist Party, of no less and perhaps oven of more
	importance for the work which militant materialism should perform is an
	alliance with those modern natural scientists who incline towards
	materialism and are not afraid to defend and preach it as against the
	modish philosophical wanderings into idealism and scepticism which are
	prevalent in so-called educated society.

The article by A. Timiryazev on Einstein’s theory of relativity
	published inPod Znamenem MarksizmaNo. 1-2 permits us to hope
	that the journal will succeed in effecting this second alliance too.
	Greater attention should be paid to it. It should be remembered that the
	sharp upheaval which modern natural science is undergoing very often gives
	rise to reactionary philosophical schools and minor schools. trends and
	minor trends. Unless, therefore, the problems raised by the recent
	revolution in natural science are followed, and unless natural scientists
	are enlisted in the work of a philosophical journal, militant materialism
	can be neither militant nor materialism. Timiryazev was obliged to observe
	in the first issue of the journal that the theory of Einstein, who,
	according to Timiryazev, is himself not making any active attack on the
	foundations of materialism, has already been seized upon by a vast number
	of bourgeois intellectuals of all countries; it should be noted that this
	applies not only to Einstein, but to a number, if not to the majority, of
	the great reformers of natural science since the end of the nineteenth
	century.

For our attitude towards this phenomenon to be a politically conscious
	one, it must be realised that no natural science and no materialism can
	hold its own in the struggle against the onslaught of bourgeois ideas and
	the restoration of the bourgeois world outlook unless it stands on solid
	philosophical ground. In order to hold his own in this struggle and carry
	it to a victorious finish, the natural scientist must be a modern
	materialist, a conscious adherent of the materialism represented by Marx,
	i.e., he must be a dialectical materialist. In order to attain this aim,
	the contributors toPod Znamenem Marksizmamust arrange for the
	systematic study ofHegelian
	dialecticsfrom a materialist standpoint, i.e., thedialecticswhichMarx applied
	practically in hisCapitaland in his historical and
	political works, and applied so successfully that now every day of the
	awakening to life and struggle of new classes in the East (Japan, India,
	and China) — i.e., the hundreds of millions of human beings who form
	the greater part of the world population and whose historical passivity
	and historical torpor have hitherto conditioned the stagnation and decay
	of many advanced European countries — every day of the awakening to
	life of new peoples and new classes serves as a fresh confirmation of
	Marxism.

Of course, this study, this interpretation, this propaganda of Hegelian
	dialectics is extremely difficult, and the first experiments in this
	direction will undoubtedly be accompanied by errors. But only he who never
	does anything never makes mistakes. Taking as our basis Marx’s method
	of applying materialistically conceived Hegelian dialectics, we can and
	should elaborate this dialectics from all aspects, print in the journal
	excerpts from Hegel’s principal works, interpret them
	materialistically and comment on them with the help of examples of the way
	Marx applied dialectics, as well as of examples of dialectics in the
	sphere of economic and political relations, which recent history,
	especially modern imperialist war and revolution, provides in unusual
	abundance. In my opinion, the editors and contributors ofPod Znamenem
	Marksizmashould be a kind of “Society of Materialist Friends of
	Hegelian Dialectics”. Modern natural scientists (if they know how to
	seek, and if we learn to help them) will find in the Hegelian dialectics,
	materialistically interpreted, a series of answers to the philosophical
	problems which are being raised by the revolution in natural science and
	which make the intellectual admirers of bourgeois fashion
	“stumble” into reaction.

Unless it sets itself such a task and systematically fulfills it,
	materialism cannot be militant materialism. It will be not so much the
	fighter as the fought, to use an expression of Shchedrin’s. Without
	this, eminent natural scientists will as often as hitherto he helpless in
	making their philosophical deductions and generalisations. For natural
	science is progressing so fast and is undergoing such a profound
	revolutionary upheaval in all spheres that it cannot possibly dispense
	with philosophical deductions.

In conclusion, I will cite an example which has nothing to do with
	philosophy, but does at any rate concern social questions, to whichPod Znamenem Marksizmaalso desires ,to devote attention.

It is an example of the way in which modern pseudo-science actually
	serves as a vehicle for the grossest and most infamous reactionary
	views.

I was recently sent a copy ofEkonomist No.1 (1922),
	published by the Eleventh Department of the Russian Technical
	‘Society. The young Communist who sent me this journal (he probably
	had no time to read it) rashly expressed considerable agreement with it.
	In reality the journal is — I do not know to what extent
	deliberately — an organ of the modern feudalists, disguised of
	course under a cloak of science, democracy and so forth.

A certain Mr. P. A. Sorokin publishes in this journal an extensive,
	so-called “sociological”, inquiry on “The Influence of the
	War”. This learned article abounds in learned references to the
	“sociological” works of the author and his numerous teachers and
	colleagues abroad. Here is an example of his learning.

On page 83, I read:

“For every 10,000 marriages in Petrograd there are
	now 92.2 divorces — a fantastic figure. Of every 100 annulled
	marriages, 51.1 had lasted less than one year, 11 per cent less than one
	month, 22 per cent less than two months, 41 per cent less than three to
	six months and only 26 per cent over six months. These figures show that
	modern legal marriage is a form which conceals what is in effect
	extra-marital sexual intercourse, enabling lovers of
	‘strawberries’ to satisfy their appetites in a ‘legal’
	way” (Ekonomist No.1, p. 83)

Both this gentleman and the Russian Technical Society,
	which publishes this journal and gives space to this kind of talk, no
	doubt regard themselves as adherents of democracy and would consider it a
	great insult to be called what they are in fact, namely, feudalists,
	reactionaries, “graduated. flunkeys of clericalism”.

Even the slightest acquaintance with the legislation of bourgeois
	countries on marriage, divorce and illegitimate children, and with the
	actual state of affairs in this field, is enough to show anyone interested
	in the subject that modern bourgeois democracy, even in all the most
	democratic bourgeois republics, exhibits a truly feudal attitude in this
	respect towards women and towards children born out of wedlock.

This, of course, does not prevent the Mensheviks, the
	Socialist-Revolutionaries, a part of the anarchists and all the
	corresponding parties in the West from shouting about democracy and how it
	is being violated by the Bolsheviks. But as a matter of fact the Bolshevik
	revolution is the only consistently democratic revolution in respect to
	such questions as marriage, divorce and the position of children born out
	of wedlock. And this is a question which most directly affects the
	interests of more than half the population of any country. Although a
	large number of bourgeois revolutions preceded it and called themselves
	democratic, the Bolshevik revolution was the first and only revolution to
	wage a resolute struggle in this respect both against reaction and
	feudalism and against the usual hypocrisy of the ruling and propertied
	classes.

If 92 divorces for every 10,000 marriages seem to Mr. Sorekin a
	fantastic figure, one can only suppose that either the author lived and
	was brought up in a monastery so entirely walled off from life that hardly
	anyone will believe such a monastery ever existed, or that he is
	distorting the truth in the interest of reaction and the bourgeoisie.
	Anybody in the least acquainted with social conditions in bourgeois
	countries knows that the real number of actual divorces (of course, not
	sanctioned by church and law) is everywhere immeasurably greater. The only
	difference between Russia and other countries in this respect is that our
	laws do not sanctify hypocrisy and the debasement of the woman and her
	child, but openly and in the name of the government declare systematic war
	on all hypocrisy and all debasement.

The Marxist journal will have to wage war also on these modern
	“educated” feudalists. Not a few of them, very likely, are in
	receipt of government money and are employed by our government to educate
	our youth, although they are no more fitted for this than notorious
	perverts are fitted for the post of superintendents of educational
	establishments for the young.

The working class of Russia proved able to win power; but it has not
	yet learned to utilise it, for otherwise it would have long ago very
	politely dispatched such teachers and members of learned societies to
	countries with a bourgeois “democracy” That is the proper place
	for such feudalists.

But it will learn, given the will to learn.

March 12, 1922